A fossil creature from the phylum Entoprocta (invertebrate animals that have tentacles and lacking a mineralized skeleton) was found in marked abundance (over 400 individuals) in Burgess Shale. The Burgess is a sedimentary layer that's purportedly part of the Cambrian period about a half-billion years ago, according to evolutionists.1 The problem for paleontologists is that the supposedly 520 million year old creature looks exactly like its living counterparts, only up to 8 eight times larger.

The Cambrian geologic system is an enigma for the evolutionary paradigm. If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time. The Cambrian system is one of the oldest geological layers containing billions of sophisticated fossils, supposedly formed after the Precambrian system. The Precambrian layers contain "simple" single-celled life, but also have jellyfish and annelids (worms).

In the Cambrian system, the fossils represent an explosion of complex multicellular life formshence the term "Cambrian Explosion." The problem for evolution is that the Cambrian explosion occurs suddenly with no transitional forms preceding it. Furthermore, many of the types of fossils found in the Cambrian layer are represented by modern organisms, such as entoprocts, that are alive and well today. For a summary of the Cambrian geological system and Burgess Shale, see the excellent review by Dr. John Morris in Acts & Facts.2

This species of entoproct, Cotyledion tylodes, was identified previously, but the specimens were not well preserved and difficult to characterize. The discovery of hundreds of new extremely well preserved fossils in much older strata was a huge surprise. Another shock was the extremely well defined detail of the fossil's mouth, anus, and digestive tract, proving that the previous classification of C. tylodes as a cnidarian (a jellyfish-like creature) was wrong. In fact, not only was the creature postulated to be much older than previously estimated, it was incredibly more complex.

Interestingly, the fossils of C. tylodes also appear to have somewhat more complex features than modern entoprocts. Unlike living entoprocts, the stem and flowerlike feeding cup of the "ancient" version was covered by tiny hardened protuberances (sclerites), and the creatures were much larger.

Clearly, a majority of the fossil record was formed as a result of the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis, making it one of evolution's greatest enemies.3 The original diversity of organisms were created by God to reproduce "after their kind," which is why fossils like the entoproct are complex, fully formed, and similar to their modern living counterparts.

If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time.

The premise is false. We still have bacteria and other single-celled organisms. Evolution does not result in more complex organisms, it results in organisms that are better at surviving in their ecological niche, though the mechanism of less-capable organisms dying off. An organism that does well-enough in its niche will stay mostly unchanged.

4
posted on 02/01/2013 11:23:42 AM PST
by PapaBear3625
(You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)

The Pre-Cambrian resulted an an amazing variety of experimental multi-lateral body arrangements, whereas an intervening major extinction event/s resulted in the loss of the diversity and the survival of a preference fr the bilateral symmetry. The article is painfully false in its many assertions.

Also, the point is the lack of transitional forms supporting Darwinian e.

There are a bazillion transitional forms supporting evolution. Look at the near-complete sequence we have for the evolution of horses, or the now much more complete sequence we have for whales (including whales with legs, whales with vestigal legs, to whales with internal leg remnants, etc.)

Of course the problem is:

Creationist: There's no transitional fossil between A and C!

Paleontologist: I just found B, which is transitional between A and C.

Creationist: Now there's no transitional fossil between A and B, OR B and C! Evolution is disproven!

the fossils found are NOT the only examples of extremely ancient fossils with extremely close cousins living today

“evolution” theory is not ONLY about some species having “evolved” from some earlier apparently different species, it also is about why some species (or some members of a species) change very little or not at all over long periods of time

if the premise of the article (its assumption of what evolution theory was saying) was true, then no ancient life form would have any extremely close relatives living today (all species “evolve” into something else and disappear), and no living life forms would have any extremely close relatives in ancient fossil records, at least not in any recognizable form (too “evolved” today to recognize the relationships) - but (1) that is not a premise of evolution theory and (2) neither of those conditions are true

now, on the lighter side

whera are all our great pranksters, for comments on the anatomy of the fossilized creature shown in the artistic rendering of it

If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time.

[PapaBear3625:] The premise is false. We still have bacteria and other single-celled organisms. Evolution does not result in more complex organisms, it results in organisms that are better at surviving in their ecological niche, though the mechanism of less-capable organisms dying off. An organism that does well-enough in its niche will stay mostly unchanged.

The premise is accurate if you are discussing Darwinian evolution.

What PapaBear3625 posted sounds thoroughly Darwinian to me. Do you have a quotation of Darwin where he says life always evolves toward greater complexity?

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

When a lifeform becomes successful there is no need for it to evolve any more.

Objection. "Successful" and "no need" entail an implication of purpose and direction that is entirely absent from the biological definition of changes in the heritable characteristics of a population over time.

Size can be accounted for by availability of food sources and numbers of the creatures competing for them.

Diet is not evolution either.

Cordially,

20
posted on 02/02/2013 5:55:00 AM PST
by Diamond
(He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)

The real problem is the DNA coding. There are no transitional forms that make the case of macro evolution. Darwinism was replaced with chemical evolution in upper level biology. As that proves unsatisfactory, (happening now,) it will be replaced with something else. Science is rarely static.

Do you have a quotation of Darwin where he says life always evolves toward greater complexity?

As requested, the last paragraph from "Origin of the Species" :

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

No "always" there - Darwin says only that all current complex species evolved from previous simpler ones, not that all previous simple ones evolved toward greater complexity.

ALWAYS?! really, that is the criteria? It is a silly argument anyway since we now know we need to deal with the complexities of digital DNA code, which is why I would expect no macro change at all. Just as was observed.

ALWAYS?! really, that is the criteria? It is a silly argument anyway since we now know we need to deal with the complexities of digital DNA code, which is why I would expect no macro change at all. Just as was observed.

[fishtank:] If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time.

[PapaBear3625:] The premise is false. We still have bacteria and other single-celled organisms. Evolution does not result in more complex organisms, it results in organisms that are better at surviving in their ecological niche, though the mechanism of less-capable organisms dying off. An organism that does well-enough in its niche will stay mostly unchanged.

[fishtank:] The premise is accurate if you are discussing Darwinian evolution.

What PapaBear3625 posted sounds thoroughly Darwinian to me. Do you have a quotation of Darwin where he says life always evolves toward greater complexity?

ALWAYS?! really, that is the criteria?

It is for fishtank's original claim above to be true.

It is a silly argument anyway since we now know we need to deal with the complexities of digital DNA code, which is why I would expect no macro change at all.

You asked why I would expect no macro changes with the “digital” DNA code. Simple, digital codes are extremely difficult to change without completely destroying their basic structure, and resulting loss of information. DNA is not analog, there are no shades of gray. On the other hand micro changes, which are changes that take advantage of variations within the code structure are obviously all around us, whether generated by natural selection or selective breeding.

The trick is differentiating between the two.

The lack of transitional forms is one of the great embarrassments of evolution. Advancements in our understanding cannot go forward until we are able to deal with this issue in a straight forward manner.

digital codes are extremely difficult to change without completely destroying their basic structure, and resulting loss of information.

Modern evolutionary theory agrees that the vast majority of mutations result in nonviable organisms - so macro changes, as accumulations of micro mutations that are not only viable but advantageous, take a very long time.

For example if we look at proteins, the basic molecular machines of life. The average protein has a specificity of 10exp480 out of all the different protein possibilities about 10exp5 of them are used in life, and this does not include denatured forms. Frankly, there is not enough material or time in the universe to make it even remotely possible for a single protein to be created by random chance. Luckily all the information to produce a protein is carried in the DNA and a protein can be created by those instructions within a living cell. Of course, you can see the problem right there. Where did the living cell come from. Since there is not enough material or time, we may conclude that the information necessary came from outside of space time. How ones deals with information that comes from outside our perceivable 4 dimensional existence is up to the individual, and far exceeds the scope of the field of biology.

there is not enough material or time in the universe to make it even remotely possible for a single protein to be created by random chance.

Creation of a protein has nothing to do with "macro change." And evolution explicitly denies that biomolecules came about through "random chance" but says that at every stage those with a survival advantage were favored over others.

I digressed. The problem ith any theory of evolution is time, which was my point. There are only 10exp28 nanoseconds in the history of the universe. There is not enough time to account for even the simplest changes in macro evolution.

How does evolution say that bio molecules came about then, if not by random chance? Unless, of course, you are now proceeding from Darwinism to Chemical evolution. Which was in one of my earlier posts.

There are only 10exp28 nanoseconds in the history of the universe. There is not enough time to account for even the simplest changes in macro evolution.

Perhaps. You have yet to demonstrate that this is true - although evolutionists have not demonstrated that it is false.

How does evolution say that bio molecules came about then, if not by random chance?

Already answered in my previous post: 'And evolution explicitly denies that biomolecules came about through "random chance" but says that at every stage those with a survival advantage were favored over others.'

Unless, of course, you are now proceeding from Darwinism to Chemical evolution.

No real difference - chemical evolution is now understood to be the mechanism by which Darwinian evolution occurs.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.